> I've never seen a rails-based company which has it problems from tech department
I've been using Rails since 1.0, owe much of my career to it, and still think it's an incredible framework that I love using.
But I have seen plenty of startups—mostly filled with junior developers—who don't have the maturity and experience to avoid some really bad ideas absolutely wall themselves into a corner. Thankfully the worst of this was in the Ruby 1.8 and Rails 2.3 era, but it still happens today.
A lot of the issue is the tendency that Ruby libraries have toward exposing internal details that end up getting relied upon (Hyrum's law in action).
With a sufficient number of users of an API,
it does not matter what you promise in the contract:
all observable behaviors of your system
will be depended on by somebody.
(There's something about the way people manage to phrase these that I really enjoy. Something about the succinct and clear expression of an idea that's otherwise really fuzzy in my head.)
It's interesting to think about the implementation being necessarily coupled with the interface. In some context that's obvious, but the idea that another implementation can't be freely swapped in -- because nuanced behavior (sometimes called a bug) in the original implementation is still expected -- is one I hadn't, as such, thought much about before.
I've been using Rails since 1.0, owe much of my career to it, and still think it's an incredible framework that I love using.
But I have seen plenty of startups—mostly filled with junior developers—who don't have the maturity and experience to avoid some really bad ideas absolutely wall themselves into a corner. Thankfully the worst of this was in the Ruby 1.8 and Rails 2.3 era, but it still happens today.
A lot of the issue is the tendency that Ruby libraries have toward exposing internal details that end up getting relied upon (Hyrum's law in action).